"Defendants will now have to disprove that they..."
So I guess innocent until proven guilty is out the window.
The Australian State of New South Wales has amended its Crimes Act with a new definition of ‘consorting’ that makes electronic communications evidence of participation in criminal groups. The new law is a second attempt at making it hard for motorcycle gangs to do business. Such gangs are suspected of playing a significant …
Yes, that's right out of the window. Incidentally, I really dislike the phrase "innocent UNTIL proven guilty", this seems to imply that it's only a matter of time until defendant is proven guilty. "innocent UNLESS proven guilty" captures the idea better
It was never in the window. In case you haven't worked it out yet, humans TALK SHIT. They love to promote all manner of high ideals when it makes them look good, but have no intention whatsoever of actually making an effort. Peace, free speech, democracy, justice, you name it - if you even get a half-assed husk of the original promise, you're doing very very well. Some day we'll all be made to hang our heads in shame like the pikey little primates we are. Yes, that includes you.
Nah the bikies are hardly ever visible, they just make good newspaper fodder. There was one infamous incident years ago when two gangs decided to shoot one another up at a country fete and a 12 year old girl bought the farm in the crossfire. The government and police should have just created a clandestine death squad and killed all of them, it was the only sensible course of action, but we have some of the most gutless politicians in the western world. As it was, the bikie world themselves - pretty much ruled here by the hells angels - took justice into their own hands and meted out some severe punishment. I'm grateful to them but it wasn't enough. Also here they are largely pussies: in Norway rival gangs take on one another with rocket launchers and no thats not a joke.
Fuck I got a thumbs down for a comment like that.- ( Ok a professional comedian I am not but shit I can't see how it would offend or upset any reasonably minded person. )
Would the owner of the negative feedback at least have the courage to explain his actions.
"The new offence also makes it clear that consorting can occur in person or by any other means, including by electronic or other form of communication"
So, basically the normal definition that any ordinary person would expect for the word? Yeah, what a bunch of fascists!
Lawyers hate this sort of thing because it makes it hard for them to weasel guilty clients out of trouble.
If I email you a message telling you to shoot some bloke, who in their right mind would say that was any different from saying it to your face?
So, your idea of a good criminal justice system is one in which it's pointless to have a defense attorney? I'm glad you're not in charge - though you could probably win elected office in oz, from the look of things.
How about this - you should go kill someone - Julia Gillard maybe? Or Kevin Rudd.. Aweseome. You know that's illegal, you can't prove you didn't intend to carry out my suggestion, and we communicated about the crime via electronic means! Don't bother getting a lawyer, though; there's no way to weasel out of this with a nasty lawyer. The law doesn't apply to your case? Well, you -would- say that, wouldn't you, *criminal!*
'Guilty-until-proven-innocent' is only a small part of the law, and only a small part of my above response. It applies just as well - and the law is nearly as horrible - without it.
The fact that you happen to agree with me on a small part of a multifaceted issue does not make you reasonable.
"improve on previous legislation by lowering the burden of proof required to show that someone participated in a criminal group. Defendants will now have to disprove that they “ … knew, or ought reasonably to have known …” that their activity “… contributed to the occurrence of a criminal activity.”"
So defendants are now guilty unless they can prove they knew nothing about criminal activity.... since proving a negative of this type isn't possible, then they are de jure guilty. That for 'lowering the burden of proof' into negative territory. Sure that's an 'improvement'
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019